Airplanes: Please explain why there is less comfort, less legroom, while the technology has advanced?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Check this out everyone:

https://www.flights.com/blog/where-has- ... ne-design/


On there and elsewhere, and perhaps some of you may remember, on airplanes in past decades, there was more leg room and better services like that, and yet the technology was less advanced. Now, the technology has become more advanced but there is less leg room and the accomodations are not as good. What happened? This makes no rational, logical, or economic sense. The logical progression would be = More advanced technology and more people riding airplanes than in decades past = cheaper flights and more accomodations and better service.

For example: They used to feed people actual whole meals on airlines. Now you would have to be fortunate to get a prepackaged sandwich and peanuts and orange juice.

Or is this another case of the "good old days myth", that there were good accomodations back then for the luxury payers but there were the more cramped conditions, too, for the cheaper tickets?

That article claims the Golden Age of airline flight was in the 1950s and 1960s.

The humanist science fiction optimists like Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov and Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek told people that in their view, first comes a period of both increasing human technology in incremental steps, along with more scarcity in some areas, followed by an age of material and energy abundance, when everyone gets the best. How realistic or unrealistic is that?

[James Y]

IMO, the answer is simple: corporate greed. Cramming more people into smaller spaces to get the maximum profit they can at the expense of passengers' comfort. The owners and decision-makers in the airline industry don't care, because they fly around in their own private luxury jets.

Jim

[Sjucaveman]

So airlines can make more profit.

[Daveho]

People also used to dress up to fly- now people treat planes like it’s their living room.

[flasharry]

corporate greed, pure and simple...

[MichaelScott]

The need to make a profit to stay in business. Everyone looks for the cheapest flight possible.

[Doc Dan]

Because the greedy blood suckers that run American air carriers want as many people on an airplane with as little service as possible. I refuse to fly American air carriers if I can get a flight from some other carrier, like Korea, Singapore, Emirates, etc. They are what American carriers used to be.

[ChrisinHove]

The Dreamliner is a significant improvement to long haul comfort, imho, with it’s air quality management.

[ferider]

On there and elsewhere, and perhaps some of you may remember, on airplanes in past decades, there was more leg room and better services like that, and yet the technology was less advanced. Now, the technology has become more advanced but there is less leg room and the accomodations are not as good. What happened?

It's pretty simple:

Since many years, I fly regularly US <-> Europe and Asia. I remember, 20 years ago, ticket prices were about the same as today (if you forget about occasional discounts, etc.). Yet, service has become much worse, seating is much tighter, planes are packed more densly.

Also, I used to be able to buy partner tickets with miles 20 years ago - today this is basically impossible, miles don't mean much anymore.

Reason: the publicly traded companies have to continue to increase "shareholder value". In a fixed market size, the only way to do this is by cutting costs. So at least for the US companies, quality will continue to degrade.

Note that you see the same thing (at least here in California) with most service companies, like PG&E, ATT, etc. For the same reason.

I always think there are business opportunities for companies to compete at slightly higher prices but better service. But nobody seems to take the bait .... my conclusion is that customers other than me are OK with lousy service; for example, it's considered completely normal to make an appointment with ATT to fix your phone line 3 weeks out and to be given only a full day window forcing you to stay at home that day

So it's the fault of all of you who keep buying cheep tickets, and don't complain about lousy service via your wallet :) I recommend to fly European or Asian airlines at a slightly higher price, they more or less keep the quality, IMO. For example Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Eva Air, etc.

Roland.

[demoncase]

Okey-dokey: I spent 10 years working at the design-build end of large civil aircraft in a Tier 1 supplier to both Boeing and Airbus-
I also used to clock 75,000 airmiles a year globally- 22-26 long haul flights.

This here is my distilled observations on the subject

1. The cost of running aircraft is higher than ever- because flying is safer than ever.
Wierd concept I know, but when we look at the number of fatalities globally across aviation in 2018 it's 555. Total. For the year.
(Which is the same number of people who die in road accidents globally every 2 hours)
A civil airliner now is much more complex, tougher, safer animal- requiring many more regular checks and a higher level of pilot qualification to operate.
The Unit cost of a 787 is $239 million (Today)
The Unit cost of 757 was £23 million.

Equally, the Regulatory Bodies (FAA etc) have much more stringent requirements about what is and isn't allowable in terms of repairs and build quality....and that adds cost.
Then there's fuel and environmental taxes- Avgas is more pricey than ever....Paris is still the same distance as ever from NYC.

You have to make all these costs back somehow, or go out of business.
This is why Boeing built so much of the 787 from carbon fibre- it means you can fit in more seats, to start making money on the purchase price sooner and your operators can use less fuel too

Which is fine all things being equally.......but......

2. We (the consumer) demand the cheapest tickets possible
Yep, the folks really to blame are us- me, you and every other person who wants to fly.
And it's a lot of people- there are about 3 BILLION passengers moving globally per annum.
Flying used to a novelty- something no-one did- and of itself an event to be enjoyed (Hence the high-end model in the 60s-70s)
Now it's mundane- and like a bus ride for most of us: something to be endured to get somewhere else

The low cost airlines are the growth market......You only have to look at how the A380 (a beautiful, comfortable plane to fly on) has been canned this month to see that there's no economic model for 'better' air travel
(That said- flying business class is rather different to economy- whomever you fly with, though Emirates is a cut above everyone else.
A lay flat bed and a cocktail bar on the top deck of the A380 are a great way of taking the sting out of 36 hours of travel to Baguio City )

I can buy a flight to Paris for £40 from England.
Do we really feel that's the true cost of transporting me 430 miles at 20,000 feet? When a train ticket to London is about the same price?
Am I fully aware that I will feel like a sardine from the wrong side of the can when I get there?- Yep.

The US internal model is even further paired to the bone- and so economy focused it's all about 'bums on seats' as we say in the UK.
That's why a US internal flight feels like a bus ride- because that's the way they operate.

[Bloke]

We transport cattle in a similar fashion to cheap air travel here in Oz. We just do it at ground level is all. :rolleyes:

[legOFwhat?]

Take an Ambien and you won't know your knees are in your ears or how bad the "service" is. Makes those 17+ hour flights fly by :D

We transport cattle in a similar fashion to cheap air travel here in Oz. We just do it at ground level is all. :rolleyes:

Nice Kangaroo exploder on that truck! :p

[TomAiello]

Air travel is cheaper than ever. For a flight that is only a few hours long, most people will prioritize price far ahead of comfort.

The airlines aren't "greedy". They are correctly responding to the incentives provided by their customers--who prefer to purchase cheaper tickets and rarely ask how comfortable the flight will be when they have their wallets out.

[Bloke]

Nice Kangaroo exploder on that truck! :p

Hey Larry, this off topic but ...

Bull Bars are a common thing on heavy vehicles here in Oz but they're not as infallible or as indestructible as they look.

One of my uncles drove a Semi (22 wheels) interstate, Sydney to Perth. An 8000km trip there and back for forty odd years and when I was much younger and on holidays I'd go with him now and then and share the driving on the open road. I used to love it. Anyhow, all animals on the road are avoided at all reasonable costs as even a small Kangaroo has the potential do serious damage to radiator, panels and lights not to mention the bull bar itself. Cattle and camels will more than likely leave you stranded if hit at almost any speed.

Dusk and dawn are the worst times and Kangaroos are the most unpredictable of the lot and have a tendency to hop half way across the road then turn around and hop back the way they came often ending up under the back wheels so you'd shed as much speed as you reasonably could, switch lights on an off and give a blast or two of the horn and hope for the best. :eek:

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Some questions on this:

1 How can airplanes have all the best of both worlds, comfort and low cost and safety? Basically that would mean some revolutionary new technology like gravity control and nanotech?

2 Regarding bull bars and Australian vehicles: How could a vehicle be beefed up and armored to be impervious to all of it: bulls, crocs, roos, dingos, etc and be able to be a "survival vehicle"?

[anagarika]

1. Apart from statistical fluctuations and some mismanagement, currently it’s at its best. I remember Sal saying ‘everyone is trying to do the best they can’.
2. Make it a tank of a truck. Won’t be economical though. Again, statistically see no. 1.

I guess I’m not much of an innovator :D

[The Mastiff]

I flew to Frankfort Germany in 1980-ish while in the Army. The military contracted with a company called " Flying Tigers" and it was the worst conditions I have ever seen in an airliner. It was a 747 something, probably dash 200. It was way overcrowded and filthy. Half the bathrooms were not working. It was a nightmare. We even stopped over in Newfoundland ( from NYC) but weren't allowed off the plane. It was a mechanical issue best I can recall.

On the way back I flew Pan Am out of Munich. The Lockheed L1011-500 was spacious, clean and there was even a flight crew which I never saw on Flying Tigers.A completely different experience. I've flown a lot of different airlines in most of the different airliners at one time or another and the one thing I can say is seating arrangement is selected by the airlines when they buy or lease the aircraft. If there are bad conditions or great ones it is not the plane but the airline. The same airliner in different airlines might have different or the same seating with different colors.

One aircraft I always wanted to ride in but never got the opportunity was the VC 10. I first saw them in Chicago at O'hare International in the late 60's and wished I could transfer. I never flew in the Concorde either. Too expensive!

Joe

[legOFwhat?]

Kangaroos are the most unpredictable...

Here in the backwoods of the Commonwealth deer is a big threat but it's mainly smaller vermin.


If there is one thing I could change, or want to improve, when it comes to airplanes is better air filtration. After 15 hours or so a big tube of humans starts to get a little rank!

[demoncase]

Some questions on this:

1 How can airplanes have all the best of both worlds, comfort and low cost and safety? Basically that would mean some revolutionary new technology like gravity control and nanotech?

2 Regarding bull bars and Australian vehicles: How could a vehicle be beefed up and armored to be impervious to all of it: bulls, crocs, roos, dingos, etc and be able to be a "survival vehicle"?

1. There's an old saw that goes: "You can have Faster, Cheaper or Better- Pick any two but not all three". Air travel always goes for cheaper and safety. Comfort is an option that the customer has to pay extra for...If they want to.

2. Already been done: it's called the Volvo 850 Estate from 1999. :)

[Evil D]

More seats means more profit, and the more uncomfortable coach is the more enticing and justified the cost of first class is.